PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The acquisition of motor skills is a key element in many sports. A motor learning principle, which is frequently used to support skill acquisition is the application of different attentional foci. The effectiveness of different attentional foci on performance and the learning of motor skills has been investigated in various sports using randomised controlled trials. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of different attentional foci (such as external (EFA) and internal attentional foci (IFA), but also holistic and switching foci) on the performance and learning of a sport-specific motor task in healthy individuals.
UNASSIGNED: This study was a systematic review with network meta-analysis. We followed the Prisma reporting guideline and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. Cinahl, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central were searched for eligible studies. Network meta-analyses were performed for the post-acquisition, retention and transfer test endpoints.
UNASSIGNED: Twelve studies were included in the review. At post-acquisition an EFA was the most effective intervention compared to the control intervention (SMD: 0.9855; 95% CI [0.4-1.57]; p: 0.001). At the retention and transfer test endpoints, a holistic focus of attention had the highest effectiveness compared to an IFA (SMD 0.75; 95% CI [-0.1 to 1.6]; p: 0.09) and (SMD 1.16; 95% CI [0.47-1.86]; p: 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: For all three endpoints, we analysed a greater effectiveness of an EFA and holistic focus compared to an IFA. Several promising different attentional focus interventions were identified. The largest effects were analysed for a holistic focus. However, only one study used this intervention and therefore there remains uncertainty about the effectiveness. With regard to the inconsistency observed, the analysis at post-acquisition should be interpreted with caution. Modified versions of the EFA were the imagined and the dynamic EFA. Both were only explored in single studies and should therefore be investigated in further follow-up studies that directly compare them.
UNASSIGNED: This study was a systematic review with network meta-analysis. We followed the Prisma reporting guideline and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. Cinahl, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central were searched for eligible studies. Network meta-analyses were performed for the post-acquisition, retention and transfer test endpoints.
UNASSIGNED: Twelve studies were included in the review. At post-acquisition an EFA was the most effective intervention compared to the control intervention (SMD: 0.9855; 95% CI [0.4-1.57]; p: 0.001). At the retention and transfer test endpoints, a holistic focus of attention had the highest effectiveness compared to an IFA (SMD 0.75; 95% CI [-0.1 to 1.6]; p: 0.09) and (SMD 1.16; 95% CI [0.47-1.86]; p: 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: For all three endpoints, we analysed a greater effectiveness of an EFA and holistic focus compared to an IFA. Several promising different attentional focus interventions were identified. The largest effects were analysed for a holistic focus. However, only one study used this intervention and therefore there remains uncertainty about the effectiveness. With regard to the inconsistency observed, the analysis at post-acquisition should be interpreted with caution. Modified versions of the EFA were the imagined and the dynamic EFA. Both were only explored in single studies and should therefore be investigated in further follow-up studies that directly compare them.
摘要：
■运动技能的获得是许多运动中的关键要素。运动学习原理，经常用于支持技能获取的是不同注意力焦点的应用。已使用随机对照试验在各种运动中研究了不同注意力对表现和运动技能学习的有效性。本研究的目的是调查不同注意焦点(如外部(EFA)和内部注意焦点(IFA)的有效性。但也是整体和切换重点）对健康个体的运动特定运动任务的表现和学习。
■本研究是一项网络荟萃分析的系统综述。我们遵循Prisma报告指南和Cochrane手册进行系统评价。Cinahl,Embase,搜索Medline和CochraneCentral以寻找合格的研究。对采集后的患者进行了网络荟萃分析，保留和转移测试端点。
■12项研究被纳入综述。在采集后，与对照干预相比，EFA是最有效的干预措施（SMD：0.9855;95％CI[0.4-1.57];p：0.001）。在保留和转移测试终点，与IFA(SMD0.75;95%CI[-0.1~1.6];p:0.09)和(SMD1.16;95%CI[0.47~1.86];p:0.001)相比,整体关注的有效性最高.
■对于所有三个端点，与IFA相比，我们分析了全民教育和整体关注的更大有效性。确定了几种有希望的不同注意力集中干预措施。分析了最大的影响，以获得整体关注。然而,只有一项研究使用了这种干预措施,因此有效性仍存在不确定性.关于观察到的不一致，收购后的分析应谨慎解释。EFA的修改版本是想象的和动态的EFA。两者仅在单个研究中进行了探索，因此应在直接比较它们的进一步后续研究中进行研究。
■本研究是一项网络荟萃分析的系统综述。我们遵循Prisma报告指南和Cochrane手册进行系统评价。Cinahl,Embase,搜索Medline和CochraneCentral以寻找合格的研究。对采集后的患者进行了网络荟萃分析，保留和转移测试端点。
■12项研究被纳入综述。在采集后，与对照干预相比，EFA是最有效的干预措施（SMD：0.9855;95％CI[0.4-1.57];p：0.001）。在保留和转移测试终点，与IFA(SMD0.75;95%CI[-0.1~1.6];p:0.09)和(SMD1.16;95%CI[0.47~1.86];p:0.001)相比,整体关注的有效性最高.
■对于所有三个端点，与IFA相比，我们分析了全民教育和整体关注的更大有效性。确定了几种有希望的不同注意力集中干预措施。分析了最大的影响，以获得整体关注。然而,只有一项研究使用了这种干预措施,因此有效性仍存在不确定性.关于观察到的不一致，收购后的分析应谨慎解释。EFA的修改版本是想象的和动态的EFA。两者仅在单个研究中进行了探索，因此应在直接比较它们的进一步后续研究中进行研究。
